The US Won the War of 1812

[Rob Stuart]

... acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective

Are you suggesting that if the US invasions of the Canadian colonies had been successful they would have been handed back if the UK addressed the American grievances?

In any case, the Canadians' only war aim was to avoid loss of territory to the US. Since no territory was permanently lost to the US, we Canadians naturally feel that our side won. A more nuanced assessment might be that no one won. Peace was signed because the surrender of Napoleon in April 1814 made the war pointless, e.g., with that war over the RN ended its blockade of France and US ships would be free to trade with France once the US-UK war ended.

[Bearskin]

We obviously have different views. I see this because we have different perspectives.

Yes, we do. I view any claim that the USA won is at best purely psychological. At worst it depends on complete distortion of history. I am happy to provide links to US educational material in schools that claim Britain was the aggressor, hell bent on reclaiming American ‘colonies’ and that she was thwarted in the ‘Second War of Independence’. There is not a shred of evidence that Britain attempted to conquer the USA, but it’s interesting that an American war of aggrandizement and conquest has been transformed by American posterity into one of defence of the republic.

It’s perfectly true that British hubris was pricked at Plattsburgh and New Orleans and that the USA escaped uti posseditis at Ghent. However, both sides procrastinated at Ghent – not just the British. But the final result was precisely what the British government was ready to accept in 1813. On 26th December 1813, the British government agreed that:

“She is ready to sign a peace with the United States, in a general peace on the status quo ante helium without involving in such Treaty any decision on the points in dispute at the commencement of hostilities.”
Memorandum of Cabinet, December 26th, 1813.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is exactly what Congress, with delirious enthusiasm, universally ratified in 1815. Not one of the casus belli behind the USA’s declaration of war was even addressed – let alone conceded. How can the USA claim to have won?

We’ll look in detail at US demands at Ghent later, considering concessions on future revival of the OIC (which regulated American trade with Europe) impressment, violations of territorial waters, breaches of the rules governing naval blockades, and definition of contraband. (We’ll ignore the early US demands by the plenipotentiaries that Canada be transferred to the USA.)

These were the very reasons that the USA ostensibly declared war in the first place. In advising the negotiating team at Ghent, James Monroe said of maritime issues that “If this encroachment of Great Britain is not provided against, the United States have appealed to arms in vain.”.

[Bearskin]

... acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective

Are you suggesting that if the US invasions of the Canadian colonies had been successful they would have been handed back if the UK addressed the American grievances?

The British delegation ot Ghent stated that:

“It is perfectly true that the war between His Majesty and the United States was declared by the latter Power upon the pretence of Maritime Rights … it is notorious to the whole world that the conquest of Canada, and it’s permanent annexation to the United States, was the declared object of the American government”.

“If the declaration first made had been disapproved, it would not have been repeated. The declarations here referred to are to be found in the proclamation of general Hull in July, 1812, and of general Smyth in November, 1812.”

These are the aforementioned proclamations plastered over both sides of the border:

“Raise not your hands against your brethern, many of your fathers fought for the freedom and Independence we now enjoy Being children therefore of the same family with us, and heirs to the same Heritage, the arrival of an army of Friends must be hailed by you with a cordial welcome, You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified status of freemen.”
Proclamation, General William Hull, July 1812

“You will enter a country that is to be one of the United States. You will arrive among a people who are to become your fellow citizens. It is not against them that we come to make war. It is against that Government which holds them as vassals.”
Proclamation, 17 November, 1812, Brigadier General Alexander Smyth

The transcript of the trial of Major-General William Hull in 1814, who surrendered Detroit, states explicitly that his proclamation was approved by Madison.

“Immediately after making the invasion according to my orders from the administration, I issued a Proclamation to the inhabitants of Upper Canada, pledging to them the faith of the government, that they should be protected in their persons, property, and rights, I have stated also the manner in which this proclamation was received and approved by the President.”

The British colonies in Canada were inhabited by a great many American born people. They had left for land and lower taxation. (US society was one of dominance by a white land-owning elite, human chattel, higher taxation and decimation of First Nations). To the best of my knowledge there was little or no welcoming of the American invaders of Canada at all. Looting and burning didn’t help. It seems that almost everyone north of the border simply preferred British ‘tyranny’.

Now that the ‘Annals of Congress’ and the ‘American State Papers’ can be read online, it is interesting to read how the idea of planting sedition in Canada was debated in Congress. Taking Canada was expected to be a mere matter of marching.

The following is but a very small sample of planned sedition in British North America that is in complete accordance with the proclamation of Hull, approved by the President:

“But it seems this is to be a holiday campaign-there is to be no expense of blood, or treasure, on our part-Canada is to conquer herself-she is to be subdued by the principles of fraternity. The people of that country are first to be seduced from their allegiance, and converted into traitors, as preparatory to the making them good citizens.”
John Randolph, December 1811, 12th Cong., 1st sess.

"The conquest of Canada has been represented to be so easy as to be little more than a party of pleasure. We have, it has been said, nothing to do but to march an army into the country and display the standard of the United States, and the Canadians will immediately flock to it and place themselves under our protection. They have been represented as ripe for revolt, panting for emancipation from a tyrannical Government, and longing to enjoy the sweets of liberty under the fostering hand of the United States."
Congressmen Samuel Taggart, Alexandria Gazette, 24 July 1812.

“When we were about declaring war, I very well remember that we were told with equal confidence by gentlemen anxious to engage in it (and who would listen to no arguments, even for delay, against the measure) that we had only to declare war, and Canada would, in the course of a few months, at most, be ours; that the militia alone, with the aid of a very few regulars, would be competent to the conquest of the whole country, except the fortress of Quebec; and that that must very soon fall of course. An honorable gentleman from Vermont (Mr. FISK) informed us that the people of those Provinces would almost conquer themselves; that they were at least pre-disposed to be conquered—to use his own expression, that they were "panting" to participate in our liberty. Jonathan Moseley, Congress, 2 January 1813.

[Bearskin]

... acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective

Are you suggesting that if the US invasions of the Canadian colonies had been successful they would have been handed back if the UK addressed the American grievances?

“But it seems this is to be a holiday campaign-there is to be no expense of blood, or treasure, on our part-Canada is to conquer herself-she is to be subdued by the principles of fraternity. The people of that country are first to be seduced from their allegiance, and converted into traitors, as preparatory to the making them good citizens.”
John Randolph, December 1811, 12th Cong., 1st sess.

It's worth reading a little more about what Randolph, lone wolf of his own party, said in his 1811 speech in Congress. From the quotes below it is easy to gauge the temper of those who, with new profits looming in Canada, eagerly voted for war against Britain

1. Maritime issues were subordinate to territorial expansion.

"Agrarian cupidity, not maritime rights, urges this war. Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one eternal monotonous tone - Canada! Canada! Canada! Not a syllable about Halifax, which unquestionably should be our great object in a war for maritime security."

2. He describes how Canada is to be conquered for acquisition of territory and subjects:

This war of conquest—a war for the acquisition of territory and subjects—is to be a new commentary on the doctrine, that republicans are destitute of ambition; that they are addicted to peace, wedded to the happiness and safety of the great body of their people.

3. How reduction of Canada it is to be accomplished (see the proclamations)

But, it seems, this is to be a holiday campaign; there is to be no expense of blood or treasure on our part; Canada is to conquer herself; she is to be subdued by the principles of fraternity! The people of that country are first to be seduced from their allegiance, and converted into traitors, as preparatory to making them good citizens! Although I must acknowledge, that some of our flaming patriots were thus manufactured, I do not think the process would hold good with a whole community. It is a dangerous experiment. We are to succeed in the French mode, by the system of fraternization—all is French! But how dreadfully it might be retorted on the southern and western slave-holding states. I detest this subornation of treason. No; if we must have them, let them fall by the valor of our arms; by fair, legitimate conquest; not become the victims of treacherous seduction.

4. He speaks on the commercial benefits of acquisition of Canada.

We have, by our own wise (I will not say wiseacre) measures, so increased the trade and wealth of Montreal and Quebec, that at last we begin to cast a wishful eye at Canada. Having done so much towards its improvement, by the exercise of "our restrictive energies," we begin to think the laborer worthy of his hire, and to put in claim for our portion.

5. He asks if being a virtual ally of Napoleon is worth material greed.

Ask yourselves if you are willing to become the virtual allies of Bonaparte? Are you willing, for the sake of annexing Canada to the Northern States, to submit to that overgrowing system of taxation which sends the European laborer supperless to bed, to maintain, by the sweat of your brow, armies at whose hands you are to receive a future master? Suppose Canada ours; is there any one among you who would ever be, in any respect, the better for it —the richer, the freer, the happier, the more secure. And is it for a boon like this that you would join in the warfare against the liberties of man in the other hemisphere, and put your own in jeopardy? Or is it for the nominal privilege of a licensed trade with France that you would abandon your lucrative commerce with Great Britain, Spain and Portugal, and their Asiatic, African, and American dependencies?

6. Indians: Even the text of the Declaration of War admits that there is no real evidence that Britain was inciting “savage tribes”. Speaking of evidence -

"Has Mr. Grundy any proof that the massacre of the Wabash was instigated by the British? It is mere surmise and suspicion. It is our own thirst for territory that has driven these sons of nature to desperation!"

7. He prophesises the inevitable British naval response against the USA.

"Go! march to Canada! leave the broad bosom of the Chesapeake and her hundred tributary rivers, the whole line of sea-coast from Machias to St. Mary's, unprotected! You have taken Quebec—have you conquered England? Will you seek for the deep foundations of her power in the frozen deserts of Labrador?

"Her march is on the mountain wave,
Her home is on the deep."

Will you call upon her to leave your ports and harbors untouched, only just till you can return from Canada, to defend them? The coast is to be left defenceless, whilst men of the interior are revelling in conquest and spoil. "

8. He acknowledges that British naval power holds in check what he rightfully describes as the archenemy of mankind – Napoleon Bonaparte.

"As Chatham and Burke, and the whole band of her patriots, prayed for her defeat in 1776, so must some of the truest friends to their country deprecate the success of our arms against the only power that holds in check the archenemy of mankind."

Elsewhere he says that:

"Great Britain violates your flag on the high seas. What is her situation? Contending, not for the dismantling of Dunkirk, for Quebec, or Pondicherry, but for London and Westminster " for life; her enemy violating at will the territories of other nations, acquiring thereby a colossal power that threatens the very existence of her rival. But she has one vulnerable point to the arms of her adversary, which she covers with the ensigns of neutrality; she draws the neutral flag over the heel of Achilles. And can you ask that adversary to respect it at the expense of her existence? and in favor of whom? An enemy that respects no neutral territory of Europe, and not even your own."

Randolph, more than anyone else, perfectly articulates the British point of view. And this from an American citizen, bless him.

[South]

Good morning Rob,

No, no suggestion whatsoever. If the US had successfully conquered the Canadian colonies, they would not have been returned. The US Congress was controlled by the expansionists, the "hawks".

I never addressed how the Canadians viewed the war but do agree that from a Canadian perspective, the Canadians won this portion of the episode.

I agree with your "nuanced assessment" point that no one (not focused exclusively to the Canadian episode) won. Again, my view is that the major events generated newer, hoped for, events allowing for the US to become a new continental (in the land mass sense) power.


Warm regards,

Bob

[South]

Good morning Bear,

To repeat; we have different views based on different perspectives.

I've offered enough words and phrases well outside the psychological scope.

Again; the narrow claim that the US won is not my view as per the conflict known as the War of 1812. At best, the narrow claim view allows for calling it a "draw".

Anything can be distorted. "US educational material in schools" qualifies. (As an aside, during this war, America's national anthem was written by a prominent slave-owner.)

I'm at a loss.......actually not.......your perspective is different than mine......in the examples selected to fortify positions. "Defense of the Republic" could involve impressment. It was an excuse; veneer, but I recognize this.

I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to post export statistics here. My perspective asssigns much less value to them. What was lost was gained elsewhere. Had already alluded to New Orleans and "concerns" re the Floridas on the southern frontier.

I accept blame for having not presented a clearer view.

Less the loaded word "delirious" ("calculated" is my choice.), Congressional enthusiasm was by an august body representing their specific political blocs; the entire nation did not seek war. What was won by the US (I consider the actual conflict "War of 1812" a "draw") was the embryonic thought now congealed at the unified national level to establish a national bank, a national army and a national navy. New Orleans served as a major benchmark for the trend westward. Using narrow, explicit views of a casus belli masks ulterior motives.

Appreciated reading "the very reasons that the USA ostensibly declared war in the first place".

Rebus Sic Stantibus


Warm regards,

Bob

[Rob Stuart]

The British colonies in Canada were inhabited by a great many American born people. They had left for land and lower taxation. (US society was one of dominance by a white land-owning elite, human chattel, higher taxation and decimation of First Nations). To the best of my knowledge there was little or no welcoming of the American invaders of Canada at all. Looting and burning didn’t help. It seems that almost everyone north of the border simply preferred British ‘tyranny’.

It also didn't help that the Declaration of Independence includes this complaint about Quebec:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

When Quebec became a colony in 1763, the British permitted it to retain its 150 year old system of civil laws. The Catholic church was also left alone. The inhabitants of Quebec had every reason to fear that these pillars of their society would be lost under US rule, so they certainly did not regard the Americans as prospective liberators.

[Rob Stuart]

... acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective

Are you suggesting that if the US invasions of the Canadian colonies had been successful they would have been handed back if the UK addressed the American grievances?

No, no suggestion whatsoever. If the US had successfully conquered the Canadian colonies, they would not have been returned. The US Congress was controlled by the expansionists, the "hawks".

Then why do you say that acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective? If it was only a secondary objective, then surely the Canadian colonies would have been returned at Ghent in exchange for obtaining the primary objectives.

[South]

Good morning Rob,

Here, also. I am not saying that acquisition of Canada was a secondary objective. I am saying it was one of several primary objectives. Remember, factionalism and regionalism - and the various combinations - were at play in the US political arena.

Of the few US war objectives, various US political blocs recognized the US was not even prepared for an expeditionary force to enter Canada. It was pure politics. The war hawks ran Congress, Madison made several mistakes and other events were arriving.

One of these newly-arrived events was the Indian (native Americans) confederation encouraged by the British. The frontier settlements were under siege. It was not Madison who addressed this but rather William Henry Harrison (Tippicanoe). This event demonstrates that the US was less a national political organization with the central government dictating policies to the periphery as the typical documents portray.

The US attacks on Canada, (disregarding sound military advice by the non-hawks), involved such matters such as no control of the Great Lakes first and the use of "paper plans" for the necessary force. It was only on paper; the troops were not present.


Warm regards,

Bob

[Bearskin]

... acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective

Are you suggesting that if the US invasions of the Canadian colonies had been successful they would have been handed back if the UK addressed the American grievances?

Canada would have been permanently absorbed into the United States.

Impressment was never sufficient cause for war. The US government admitted as much. According to the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802 US citizenship was based on five years residence probationary period, but money-making scams operated by US notaries, US consuls and US customs officers abounded - where “proof” of naturalisation could be bought at the right price and issued to anyone – no oath required and no questions asked. The US merchant navy was flooded with Britons wielding their US citizenship document, usually bought for half-a-crown. Mistakes regarding genuine cases were undoubtedly made, but the British government made efforts to compensate and repatriate them. (The US Navy also impressed British seamen.)

To be clear, the Historical Register of the Unites States, 1814 states quite categorically that:

“Impressment, though always a subject of difference between two nations, had never been by our government for a moment considered as sufficient cause of war.”

The main avowed reason for war were the Orders In Council of 1807 which affected the trade of neutrals. The British government, in deference to protest on both sides of the Atlantic – particularly in Britain, repealed the Orders of Council on the 16th of June 1812, two days before America's declaration of war. But Madison rejected Britain’s peace offers and the conquest of Canada went ahead. (Had the British PM, Spencer Percival, not been assassinated then revocation of the OIC would have occurred earlier.)

So, with the revocation of the OIC and impressment in itself being an insufficient cause for war it is difficult to see what America’s conquest of Canada was supposed to achieve other than it’s absorption into the USA.

The mouthpiece of the Madison administration wrote in 1813 that:

‘Expose of the views of Government’
------------------------------------------
“We have already expressed our ideas relative to the probability of an early acquisition to the United States, by conquest of both the Canadas. They may prove erroneous. We may not obtain possession of these territories in the next summer. But eventually they must be ours and it is worthwhile to inquire into their value, and the means of holding them after they fall into our power.”Washington National Intelligencer 6th November 1813

Madison himself later admitted that:

"The remaining danger to a permanent harmony would then lie in the possession of Canada; which as Great B. ought to know, whenever rich enough to be profitable, will be strong enough to be independent. Were it otherwise, Canada can be of no value to her, when at war with us; and when at peace, will be of equal value, whether a British Colony or an American State. Whether the one or the other the consumption of British Manufactures & export of useful materials will be much the same. The latter would be guarded even against a tax on them by an Article in our Constitution.

As far as such a transfer would affect the relative power of the two Nations, the most unfriendly jealousy could find no objection to the measure; for it would evidently take more weakness from G. B. than it would add strength to the U. S. In truth the only reason we can have to desire Canada, ought to weigh as much with G. B. as with us. In her hands it must ever be a source of collision which she ought to be equally anxious to remove."
James Madison. Letter to James Monroe Montpellier, Nov 28, 1818.

Americans misjudged their claim that colonists in Canada would welcome their newfound ‘freedom’. The optimism lasted quite a while and probably continues to this day –

"If Canada chooses to declare its independence and agrees to the terms of the Articles of Confederation, it can join the union and become a fully sovereign state like the other thirteen states. This offer does not include any other colony but Canada, unless nine states agree to extend this offer to another colony."Article XI of the US Articles of Confederation 1781-1789

“The inhabitants of Canada – we fight not to conquer them, but the policy which made them our enemies. May they soon be united to the American Republic.”
Colonel R.M Johnson, Buffalo, 25 October 1813

The Annexation Bill of 1866 -

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/con ... 102-e.html

War Plan Red 1920s/30s-

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... -plan-red/

I doubt whether Canada has an annexation plan for the USA, but it’s more than likely that t the USA has a covert one on Canada up its sleeve.

[Bearskin]

The only exchange of territory in the war was when three American soldiers
captured Carleton Island in the St. Lawrence River (in the Thousand Islands
group). This was ratified by Great Britain in the treaty of peace. Thus, by the
measure of territory won or lost, the United States did indeed win the War of
1812.

Under the Terms of the Jay Treaty, Carleton Island was already US territory.

[Bearskin]

What was won by the US (I consider the actual conflict "War of 1812" a "draw") was the embryonic thought now congealed at the unified national level to establish a national bank, a national army and a national navy. New Orleans served as a major benchmark for the trend westward. Using narrow, explicit views of a casus belli masks ulterior motives.

OK, understood and agreed, Bob. There was a world of difference between Britain’s robust long-established banking and credit systems and the USA’s spectacular financial and banking collapse in 1814. Maritime insurance rates in Britain were high, but that made no discernible difference to the overall economy, strained but unbroken by two decades of war. In ‘The War of 1812’ by contrast, historian Harry L. Coles writes that:

“The summer and fall of 1814 marked the lowest ebb in the fortunes in the financial history of the United States.”

The Second Bank of America was restructured in 1816 as a direct consequence of the War of 1812. Both Coles and Hickey describe how the First Bank of America was re-chartered in some detail.

And Congress met at Blodgett’s Hotel in Washington to evolve a force with professional standards of organisation, training and discipline.

“… a certain degree of preparation for war is not only indispensable to avert disasters in the onset, but affords also the best security for the continuance of peace. The wisdom of Congress will therefore, I am confident, provide for the maintenance of an adequate regular force, for the gradual advancement of the naval establishment, for improving all the means of harbor defense, for adding discipline to the distinguished bravery of the militia, and for cultivating the military art in its essential branches, under the liberal patronage of Government.”
February 18, 1815 (page 310 'The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict')

[South]

Good afternoon Bear,

Well received.

Let me close down my ramblings on this thread with mentioning a book.

The book is:

"Seapower In Its Relations to the War of 1812",Alfred Thayer Mahan, various publishers.


Warm regards,

Bob

[Sid Guttridge]

The real winner of the war was Canada, which preserved its independence despite the USA's worst efforts.

The War of 1812 might be described in Canada as the "War for Canadian Independence."

Cheers,

Sid

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Sid Guttridge and the community as a whole. Howdy Sid! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Wednesday - October 24, 2018 - 2:40am, old yours truly will concur with your sentiments on this continental matter. Yes, our Anglophonic cousins up in the proverbial GREAT WHITE NORTH clearly cleaned our clocks during that chapter of not so neighborliness and, apart from the possession of the Stanley Cup, we Yanks have wisely NOT picked a fight with the Canucks since that ill advised exercise in fraternal unpleasantness. However, after all was said and done, our northern neighbors still wound up on the short end of the stick - they're still stuck with the Province of Quebec! You win some and you lose some! Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth on this nostalgic sojourn down BACK BACON lane - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob